I'm willing to bet that Apple hasn't given up on this. It's just not quite there yet.
I think it would be a long shot at best. You never know though. Apple is usually more evolutionary and doesn't make radical changes once they have released a product, with the single exception that I can think of which was a round Mac Pro, which I thought was a terrible idea.
This is a much more fair comparison. Notice that both the round watch and rectangle watch have bezel.
Notice how much bigger the round watch looks.
Again, sog, I don't give a flying **** about compairing a rectangle to a circle in general. All I care about is demonstrating that one could envision a circular ? Watch that isn't too large to blow the aesthetics and yet can support the experience we enjoy today. How can this escape you?!?!?!
Hilarious that they don't show any text messages or other text oriented material on the Samsung. From looking at it the round screen looks like a nightmare to read text on.
Check about the two minute mark. They do zip by it pretty quick and perhaps for good reason. I've not seen either one in the flesh yet so have no judgement on it myself.
For anyone interested here's a short side-by side with the Apple Watch and a competitor's round smartphone version. The round one is much smaller than I had expected it to be.
[VIDEO]
I saw this already and I have to say that the rotating bezel appears to be a good idea as it seems much easier to use than the crown when worn.
Top left: Current ? Watch shape, drawn to scale, including bezels.
Top right: Smallest circle that perfectly circumscribes the usable area of current ? Watch.
Bottom left: Current ? Watch displayed over the top of the circle from top right.
Bottom right: Circle from top right displayed on top of the current ? Watch
I don't think this circle blows the aesthetics. In fact, I think it is better. While it is slightly wider (see bottom left), it takes up significantly less space than the current ? Watch due to those large corner bezels (see bottom right). I quite like it.
Certainly, if you want to make a new rectangular ? Watch with no bezels, you could build one that has even more usable area than either the circle or the current rectangular model. Your graphics prove precisely that.
But all I care about is the fact that this <span style="line-height:1.4em;">shows that (sans bezels!) one could make a round version of both of the current sized ? Watches without making them that much larger or losing the current size of usable text area. And the aesthetics are unharmed (improved in my opinion). There's even room for some bezel here without breaking the aesthetics (but admittedly not much)!</span>
Ahm, no bezel on the round watch?
That's comparing apples with grapes. Either use both with bezel, or both without to make it a fair comparison.
Edit: didn't see that sog wrote basically the same.
Ahm, no bezel on the round watch?
That's comparing apples with grapes. Either use both with bezel, or both without to make it a fair comparison.
Edit: didn't see that sog wrote basically the same.
If we compare apples to apples we would only conclude that the (new) rectangular no-bezel watch could have a larger useful region for text than the (new) circular no-bezel watch does. I am not disputing this.
My goal is only to show that a no-bezel circular watch would be viable, in terms of not being too large or bulky for the wrist and yet still presenting the same amount of useful space for texts that we currently enjoy. Therefore it would work. That's all I'm saying.
Having observed your discussion style, I have faith that you will understand the difference. Not so much, sog.
Hilarious that they don't show any text messages or other text oriented material on the Samsung. From looking at it the round screen looks like a nightmare to read text on.
Looks like literally fitting a square peg in a round hole. Cut off text, cut off images, random black areas. Yuk.
No way on earth Apple does something like this. They would have to 2 build 2 seperate watch interfaces from the ground up if they choose to do both a round and rectangle format.
Unlike Google they will not release a product that looks like garbage.
In the middle picture, why would the developer be so stupid as to use a gray background instead of black?
In the bottom right picture, why wouldn't the developer pull a square region from the pattern (or a map, or other background source image) that circumscribes the circle, and then crop the result to the circle that is in view?
There's no reason why there has to be the gray artifacts or the black cut outs in these examples.
The problem is you are comparing a technology that does not exist today - bezeless smartwatch screen to today tech.
It may take 3 years or more for that type of tech to be feasable in a consumer smartwatch.
I'll be honest. If the AppleWatch looks like how it does TODAY in 3 years I will be very disappointed. I expect that in 3 years the bezel will be much smaller.
I can't believe how you can't see how ridiculous it is to compare today's technology to technology that we wont see for at least 3 years or even more.
Its almost like comparing a current Samsung S6 to an iPhone4 to prove a point.
So again, we agree despite your best efforts not to!
I have put a 5 year guesstimate on the arrival of a round ? Watch.
I have consistently been talking about future needs, not current engineering decisions. (Perhaps you are debating with too many people on too many fronts and missed that aspect of my point of view?)
My own impression of the round form factor for smartwatches changed dramatically after taking possession of my Apple Watch, which arrived at 5pm on April 24th (having been ordered in the first three minutes on the 10th). Among my impressions was that I could wear it closer to my hand, which for me makes a watch more comfortable versus hanging higher on my arm...
...Original watch makers would never have gone there had they had the technology to present time as a number, and so the whole paradigm of round watch forms came about as a necessity and persists merely out of cultural tradition. Apple is exactly the type of company to dissect that thinking and go against it, offering consumers a vision of a watch that is born of the necessities of its functionality and not mere tradition. And I applaud their courage in taking us in a new direction, as they have in the past so many times.
Me too! I always thought I wanted a round smart watch, if I even wanted one at all. At least, until I tried the ? Watch on at an Apple Store. Fell in love with it immediately!
But thats my point. In five years the rectangle smart watch will look much better than today.
You will be waiting for a very long time to have a round smartwatch that is as space efficent as a rectangle watch.
Since the beginning of WRITING the rectangle interface has been the standard for text. We are talking THOUSANDS of years.
If it was possible to have text in a format BETTER than rectangle it would have been created by now. So you think a company can come up with a way to display text with a round screen that is as efficent as a rectangle screen. I'm sorry but I think that is absolutely impossible.
Lets get real. The AppleWatch is primarily a computer. Apple went to great lengths to make it look nice but it will not compromise the usability of the Watch to make it look nicer. To me and to Apple the round screen is too much of a compromise for a computing device. And we have history on our side. There has never been a successful computer that had a round screen. NOT. EVEN. ONE. There has never been a successful round TV, round laptop, round movie theater, or round book.
So you expect Apple to do something has not been succesfully done in THOUSANDS of years? LOL.
Now if the main goal of the Watch was style then I would agree with you that Apple would evenutally release a round watch. But style is secondary. Function over Form. Making a round watch would just waste resources for a product that is inferior.
I'm NOT looking for a more space efficient shape for the written word than a rectangle. And there never has been a wearable computer that had mass market appeal until now either, so your appeal to history of non-wearable computers and/or writing surfaces falls flat to me. As you finally surmised, my main point is that Apple ultimately needs to provide more style options, because here's what you geeks don't get: when it comes to wearables, form and function will weigh differently in different people's eyes. Some people will choose a smaller writing area in order to get something that looks better on their wrists according to their own personal preferences. In some cases, that will be the smaller 38 mm rectangular ? Watch that exists now. In other cases, people might opt for a future round wearable with smaller writing area. They aren't all like you. Unlike smartphones and computers, Apple will discover that they have entered a market in which their limited focus does not serve them so well. They will be fine for a while of course, but eventually one of those Android stooges will get something right (that is different from a rectangle) and they will sell like crazy, in spite of their smaller writing area and "just good enough" user interface. (I'm not talking about the hideous examples of today that you showed above.) Apple could do so much better than them though.
I
If we compare apples to apples we would only conclude that the (new) rectangular no-bezel watch could have a larger useful region for text than the (new) circular no-bezel watch does. I am not disputing this.
My goal is only to show that a no-bezel circular watch would be viable, in terms of not being too large or bulky for the wrist and yet still presenting the same amount of useful space for texts that we currently enjoy. Therefore it would work. That's all I'm saying.
Having observed your discussion style, I have faith that you will understand the difference. Not so much, sog.
I appreciate your comments and I think I understand your point. The question we are discussing here is whether there is an answer to is "are round smart watches better than rectangular ones?" I think we're all in agreement that both can be made.
I'm not a designer, but every design is a trade off. You try to incorporate as many requirements to the best possible extent, often with requirements that are conflicting.
Looking at what's feasible today the rectangular shape has the following advantages over the round shape:
- better suited for text
- Accounting to Radar better for workouts (bending wrists)
- lighter and smaller package
On the round shape side we have:
- more space for integrating battery and other stuff due to more dead space (at the same "diameter")
- ability to use the rotating bezel (as Samsung has just introduced - not sure yet if this turns out to be the iPod wheel of watches, but it looks less clumsy and fiddle than the crown)
I though about putting "resembles shape of mechan watches". But I didn't because that's not an advantage or disadvantage derived from a functional requirement. Just taste.
So it seems there are not so many points pointing in one or the other direction. We have one directly conflicting requirement: volume/size versus ability to pack tech inside.
Overall, looking at it from today, I cannot see one significantly better per se than the other. But I give preference today to the rectangle because space is premium and with the necessity to incorporate a bezel the Apple Watch give best ratio of screen size and overall package size.
Clearly, I don't see a reason why future iterations would not change the shape. It depends how strong the "round paradigm" for buyers coming from group of jewelry and mechanical watches fans is, I'd say.
I believe Apple will come out with a round smartwatch within the next few years. The technology to make a round display with minimal bezel is still in its infancy and is not as easy as some would believe.
The people on here bashing round smartwatches remind me of the people a few years ago that bashed on Android phones for being way too big. It's as if something only becomes acceptable until Apple does it.
The bezel won't solve the issue that we don't read in circles.... And you still need a much bigger watch to ge the same function.
So, you're still compromising function substantially for esthetics.
BTW, the first Iphones were the biggest phones around, so Apple has no qualms about big, it had a issue with big vs function.
When Iphones were mostly phones, big was stupid; for Apple form follows function.
If function in a smart watch is not compromised by esthetics, they would maybe do round.
But for visual input/output, even with a smaller bezel, function is compromised and even esthetics is compromisted (through a much bigger round watch necessary).
Why can't we just all agree that round is 95-99% aesthetics? And maybe Apple will find that people prefer round and they have to go that route. But don't say round is better from a utility point of view other than displaying an analog watch face because it's not. Round is basically saying, nobody will put this on their wrist and wear it if it doesn't look like a traditional watch. But to me that's like saying no one will buy this phone if it doesn't have a slide out querty keyboard or if the lower 40 isn't comprised of a hardware keyboard. I don't think the future of smartwatches is being a watch first and foremost, just like with smartphones the phone app is not the most used feature anymore. And once you go beyond the smartwatch being primarily a watch then the round form factor isn't so important.
I must say I have raised eyebrows at some of the media coverage of this Samsung watch. There was one Yahoo article that made you wonder how much Samsung was paying the writer. People in the comments sections wondered the same (and Yahoo comments sections are usually pretty anti-Apple). It seems like the meme has gone out - ?Watch crown = bad, Samsung rotary bezel = good. But I've been using an ?Watch for over a month and have never had any issues with the crown. When it's on my wrist I can easily adjust it using one finger. Simple. Easy. And to be honest I don't use the crown that much. I probably use it more as a home button than for scrolling. Also, I'm sorry, but if this was on ?Watch the tech press would have mercilessly made fun of it.
Why can't we just all agree that round is 95-99% aesthetics? And maybe Apple will find that people prefer round and they have to go that route. But don't say round is better from a utility point of view other than displaying an analog watch face because it's not. Round is basically saying, nobody will put this on their wrist and wear it if it doesn't look like a traditional watch. But to me that's like saying no one will buy this phone if it doesn't have a slide out querty keyboard or if the lower 40 isn't comprised of a hardware keyboard. I don't think the future of smartwatches is being a watch first and foremost, just like with smartphones the phone app is not the most used feature anymore. And once you go beyond the smartwatch being primarily a watch then the round form factor isn't so important.
I must say I have raised eyebrows at some of the media coverage of this Samsung watch. There was one Yahoo article that made you wonder how much Samsung was paying the writer. People in the comments sections wondered the same (and Yahoo comments sections are usually pretty anti-Apple). It seems like the meme has gone out - ?Watch crown = bad, Samsung rotary bezel = good. But I've been using an ?Watch for over a month and have never had any issues with the crown. When it's on my wrist I can easily adjust it using one finger. Simple. Easy. And to be honest I don't use the crown that much. I probably use it more as a home button than for scrolling. Also, I'm sorry, but if this was on ?Watch the tech press would have mercilessly made fun of it.
I agree :-)
btw, I am not saying the crown is bad. Just from the one small video posted on 9to5 it looks like the rotary bezel appears to be less fiddly and easier to use.
btw, I am not saying the crown is bad. Just from the one small video posted on 9to5 it looks like the rotary bezel appears to be less fiddly and easier to use.
I'm just curious....what's fiddly about the crown? And that's not just a question to you as you're not the only one who's said it. I can easily rotate the crown with my index finger. And anyway I thought smartwatches were supposed to be about pushing information to you not you having to fiddle with them.
The tech press will fiddle with this rotary bezel and get a kick out of it for a few days and then they'll go back to being bored and move on to the next shiny object. Though I have no doubt the Verge already has their force touch is confusing and pointless piece all ready to go. This week's meme is rotary bezel trumps digital crown, next week will be all concern trolling over force touch. Mark my words.
if this was on ?Watch the tech press would have mercilessly made fun of it.
It's a bit cramped but Apple could use a different layout e.g:
It doesn't even need to show both rows of characters, one can disappear after pressing the other so there's plenty of room to press the right area. Two taps for any character vs one on the iPhone and autocomplete helps. It's just an option, you can use voice or emojis like the Apple Watch. The minuum-style keyboards are another way. Kids bored in class at school can be tapping out short messages to each other. They can even do a basic swipe option where running a finger across the width of the touch area changes the current character and they just stop on the right one. It would be a bit slow at first but once you know where the characters are you won't even think about it.
People are trying very hard to find issues with this watch but it looks fine and demonstrates how a round smartwatch can be built properly with a custom UI, small form factor and nice design. Text looks ok on it too, the messages are short:
The debate over round vs square keeps going round in circles. They are both perfectly usable form factors, each with their advantages. An iPhone 6 isn't unusable vs an iPhone 6 Plus because the display is slightly smaller so similarly a watch with slightly less usable space for certain content isn't unusable vs another. Over time, all the smartwatches will be able to shrink in form factor and they'll become less and less geeky to wear. Having more space inside means being able to connect the straps more cleanly, thinner watch bodies and so on:
There's been no hints about a second Apple Watch version so far and although they announced it last September, I would imagine further announcements/updates will be delivered around March. I'd expect the next revision to the Apple Watch to arrive March 2017 though, not next year with largely the same design but a bit thinner.
Did I say the Gear S2 was fiddly? No. I just said the dial would take 2 fingers. I know this because of the videos and I owned many watches with dials on it.
My only point about the S2 is the crown would be easier to use with 1 finger than the dial. Pretty obvious.
You make a lot of claims about something you've not used nor even seen. Just because you've driven a bad car doesn't mean all cars are equally bad. If I were to base my judgement of a generic digital crown on my past experiences with other multifunction watch crowns from the past I might believe it to be a poor choice, as you might too if Apple hadn't done one.
The world has lots of gray shades, not just the black and white you tend to use.
Did I say the Gear S2 was fiddly? No. I just said the dial would take 2 fingers. I know this because of the videos and I owned many watches with dials on it.
My only point about the S2 is the crown would be easier to use with 1 finger than the dial. Pretty obvious.
How often do you use the digital crown on your Apple Watch?
Comments
I'm willing to bet that Apple hasn't given up on this. It's just not quite there yet.
I think it would be a long shot at best. You never know though. Apple is usually more evolutionary and doesn't make radical changes once they have released a product, with the single exception that I can think of which was a round Mac Pro, which I thought was a terrible idea.
Again, sog, I don't give a flying **** about compairing a rectangle to a circle in general. All I care about is demonstrating that one could envision a circular ? Watch that isn't too large to blow the aesthetics and yet can support the experience we enjoy today. How can this escape you?!?!?!
I saw this already and I have to say that the rotating bezel appears to be a good idea as it seems much easier to use than the crown when worn.
Ahm, no bezel on the round watch?
That's comparing apples with grapes. Either use both with bezel, or both without to make it a fair comparison.
Edit: didn't see that sog wrote basically the same.
If we compare apples to apples we would only conclude that the (new) rectangular no-bezel watch could have a larger useful region for text than the (new) circular no-bezel watch does. I am not disputing this.
My goal is only to show that a no-bezel circular watch would be viable, in terms of not being too large or bulky for the wrist and yet still presenting the same amount of useful space for texts that we currently enjoy. Therefore it would work. That's all I'm saying.
Having observed your discussion style, I have faith that you will understand the difference. Not so much, sog.
http://www.engadget.com/gallery/hands-on-with-samsungs-new-gear-s2/#slide=3606578|fullscreen
In the middle picture, why would the developer be so stupid as to use a gray background instead of black?
In the bottom right picture, why wouldn't the developer pull a square region from the pattern (or a map, or other background source image) that circumscribes the circle, and then crop the result to the circle that is in view?
There's no reason why there has to be the gray artifacts or the black cut outs in these examples.
So again, we agree despite your best efforts not to!
I have put a 5 year guesstimate on the arrival of a round ? Watch.
I have consistently been talking about future needs, not current engineering decisions. (Perhaps you are debating with too many people on too many fronts and missed that aspect of my point of view?)
Me too! I always thought I wanted a round smart watch, if I even wanted one at all. At least, until I tried the ? Watch on at an Apple Store. Fell in love with it immediately!
I'm NOT looking for a more space efficient shape for the written word than a rectangle. And there never has been a wearable computer that had mass market appeal until now either, so your appeal to history of non-wearable computers and/or writing surfaces falls flat to me. As you finally surmised, my main point is that Apple ultimately needs to provide more style options, because here's what you geeks don't get: when it comes to wearables, form and function will weigh differently in different people's eyes. Some people will choose a smaller writing area in order to get something that looks better on their wrists according to their own personal preferences. In some cases, that will be the smaller 38 mm rectangular ? Watch that exists now. In other cases, people might opt for a future round wearable with smaller writing area. They aren't all like you. Unlike smartphones and computers, Apple will discover that they have entered a market in which their limited focus does not serve them so well. They will be fine for a while of course, but eventually one of those Android stooges will get something right (that is different from a rectangle) and they will sell like crazy, in spite of their smaller writing area and "just good enough" user interface. (I'm not talking about the hideous examples of today that you showed above.) Apple could do so much better than them though.
I appreciate your comments and I think I understand your point. The question we are discussing here is whether there is an answer to is "are round smart watches better than rectangular ones?" I think we're all in agreement that both can be made.
I'm not a designer, but every design is a trade off. You try to incorporate as many requirements to the best possible extent, often with requirements that are conflicting.
Looking at what's feasible today the rectangular shape has the following advantages over the round shape:
- better suited for text
- Accounting to Radar better for workouts (bending wrists)
- lighter and smaller package
On the round shape side we have:
- more space for integrating battery and other stuff due to more dead space (at the same "diameter")
- ability to use the rotating bezel (as Samsung has just introduced - not sure yet if this turns out to be the iPod wheel of watches, but it looks less clumsy and fiddle than the crown)
I though about putting "resembles shape of mechan watches". But I didn't because that's not an advantage or disadvantage derived from a functional requirement. Just taste.
So it seems there are not so many points pointing in one or the other direction. We have one directly conflicting requirement: volume/size versus ability to pack tech inside.
Overall, looking at it from today, I cannot see one significantly better per se than the other. But I give preference today to the rectangle because space is premium and with the necessity to incorporate a bezel the Apple Watch give best ratio of screen size and overall package size.
Clearly, I don't see a reason why future iterations would not change the shape. It depends how strong the "round paradigm" for buyers coming from group of jewelry and mechanical watches fans is, I'd say.
I believe Apple will come out with a round smartwatch within the next few years. The technology to make a round display with minimal bezel is still in its infancy and is not as easy as some would believe.
The people on here bashing round smartwatches remind me of the people a few years ago that bashed on Android phones for being way too big. It's as if something only becomes acceptable until Apple does it.
The bezel won't solve the issue that we don't read in circles.... And you still need a much bigger watch to ge the same function.
So, you're still compromising function substantially for esthetics.
BTW, the first Iphones were the biggest phones around, so Apple has no qualms about big, it had a issue with big vs function.
When Iphones were mostly phones, big was stupid; for Apple form follows function.
If function in a smart watch is not compromised by esthetics, they would maybe do round.
But for visual input/output, even with a smaller bezel, function is compromised and even esthetics is compromisted (through a much bigger round watch necessary).
I must say I have raised eyebrows at some of the media coverage of this Samsung watch. There was one Yahoo article that made you wonder how much Samsung was paying the writer. People in the comments sections wondered the same (and Yahoo comments sections are usually pretty anti-Apple). It seems like the meme has gone out - ?Watch crown = bad, Samsung rotary bezel = good. But I've been using an ?Watch for over a month and have never had any issues with the crown. When it's on my wrist I can easily adjust it using one finger. Simple. Easy. And to be honest I don't use the crown that much. I probably use it more as a home button than for scrolling. Also, I'm sorry, but if this was on ?Watch the tech press would have mercilessly made fun of it.
Why can't we just all agree that round is 95-99% aesthetics? And maybe Apple will find that people prefer round and they have to go that route. But don't say round is better from a utility point of view other than displaying an analog watch face because it's not. Round is basically saying, nobody will put this on their wrist and wear it if it doesn't look like a traditional watch. But to me that's like saying no one will buy this phone if it doesn't have a slide out querty keyboard or if the lower 40 isn't comprised of a hardware keyboard. I don't think the future of smartwatches is being a watch first and foremost, just like with smartphones the phone app is not the most used feature anymore. And once you go beyond the smartwatch being primarily a watch then the round form factor isn't so important.
I must say I have raised eyebrows at some of the media coverage of this Samsung watch. There was one Yahoo article that made you wonder how much Samsung was paying the writer. People in the comments sections wondered the same (and Yahoo comments sections are usually pretty anti-Apple). It seems like the meme has gone out - ?Watch crown = bad, Samsung rotary bezel = good. But I've been using an ?Watch for over a month and have never had any issues with the crown. When it's on my wrist I can easily adjust it using one finger. Simple. Easy. And to be honest I don't use the crown that much. I probably use it more as a home button than for scrolling. Also, I'm sorry, but if this was on ?Watch the tech press would have mercilessly made fun of it.
I agree :-)
btw, I am not saying the crown is bad. Just from the one small video posted on 9to5 it looks like the rotary bezel appears to be less fiddly and easier to use.
I'm just curious....what's fiddly about the crown? And that's not just a question to you as you're not the only one who's said it. I can easily rotate the crown with my index finger. And anyway I thought smartwatches were supposed to be about pushing information to you not you having to fiddle with them.
The tech press will fiddle with this rotary bezel and get a kick out of it for a few days and then they'll go back to being bored and move on to the next shiny object. Though I have no doubt the Verge already has their force touch is confusing and pointless piece all ready to go. This week's meme is rotary bezel trumps digital crown, next week will be all concern trolling over force touch. Mark my words.
It's a bit cramped but Apple could use a different layout e.g:
It doesn't even need to show both rows of characters, one can disappear after pressing the other so there's plenty of room to press the right area. Two taps for any character vs one on the iPhone and autocomplete helps. It's just an option, you can use voice or emojis like the Apple Watch. The minuum-style keyboards are another way. Kids bored in class at school can be tapping out short messages to each other. They can even do a basic swipe option where running a finger across the width of the touch area changes the current character and they just stop on the right one. It would be a bit slow at first but once you know where the characters are you won't even think about it.
People are trying very hard to find issues with this watch but it looks fine and demonstrates how a round smartwatch can be built properly with a custom UI, small form factor and nice design. Text looks ok on it too, the messages are short:
The debate over round vs square keeps going round in circles. They are both perfectly usable form factors, each with their advantages. An iPhone 6 isn't unusable vs an iPhone 6 Plus because the display is slightly smaller so similarly a watch with slightly less usable space for certain content isn't unusable vs another. Over time, all the smartwatches will be able to shrink in form factor and they'll become less and less geeky to wear. Having more space inside means being able to connect the straps more cleanly, thinner watch bodies and so on:
There's been no hints about a second Apple Watch version so far and although they announced it last September, I would imagine further announcements/updates will be delivered around March. I'd expect the next revision to the Apple Watch to arrive March 2017 though, not next year with largely the same design but a bit thinner.
Why not wait to pass personal judgment on it until you've had a chance to see one :rolleyes:
The world has lots of gray shades, not just the black and white you tend to use.